Excerpting: “Exploring Halachic Dilemmas of War and Terror” by Zvi Ryzman. Artscroll Mesorah Publications. 2024. Hardcover. 274 pages. ISBN-13: 9781422642450

(Courtesy of Artscroll) In his recently released book, “Exploring Halachic Dilemmas of War and Terror,” Zvi Ryzman examines the complex question of desecrating Shabbos to address a potential future life-threatening situation in situations of war and terror. Here, he explores a related issue: If one violated Shabbos to save a life, is it permissible for him to return home if doing so would involve further chillul Shabbos?

The Mishna (Eruvin 4:3) states: One who went out [of the techum] when it was permissible (such as to testify about the new moon, or to save people from an approaching army or from a river, or to aid a woman in childbirth), and they told him that it was already completed (meaning that Beis Din already sanctified the month, or the people were already spared from the danger, or the woman already gave birth, and thus there is no need to continue on his way, and now he is outside his techum and therefore, according to the letter of the law, he may move only within four cubits and is forbidden to go back to his original place); [nevertheless, Rabban Gamliel instituted that] he may go two thousand cubits in any direction… All those who go out to save [a life] may return to their places of origin.

Rambam codifies this as halacha (Hil. Shabbos 27:17): If one went out with permission, and while he was already on his way, they told him that what he was sent out to do was already done, he has two thousand cubits in every direction. And if part of the area from which he left with permission overlaps into the two thousand cubits that he now has from his current location, he may return to his place of origin as if he had not left. And whoever goes out to save Jews from gentiles, from the river, or from a fallen building has two thousand cubits in all directions from his destination. But if the local gentiles are menacing, and [the Jews] are afraid to stay for Shabbos in the place of rescue, they are permitted to go back to their place of origin on Shabbos, with their weapons.

This is also codified in Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 407:3). The reason for this special allowance to return home is mentioned in Rambam elsewhere (Hil. Shabbos 2:23), “in order not to deter them in the future [since they would hesitate to go on a future rescue mission if they would be stranded for the rest of Shabbos].”

Based on this consideration, Igros Moshe (Orach Chaim 4:80) permits Hatzalah members who drive in response to a life-saving call on Shabbos to return to their homes on Shabbos, even at the cost of additional chillul Shabbos, “in order not to deter them in the future.”

Kehillos Yaakov (cited in Orchos Rabbeinu, Vol. 1, p. 45) also ruled: “…in the name of Chazon Ish, that we cannot forbid a doctor who travels to a patient on Shabbos to return to his home by car, so as not to deter him in the future from traveling to a patient on Shabbos.”

R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, however, discussing at length (Minchas Shlomo 1:8) whether a doctor called to care for a sick patient may violate Shabbos to return home, writes:

Although to our great pain, there are many doctors who will treat this lightly, and for whom we have a real concern that they may abstain from saving a choleh if they will be unable to return by car to their homes, nevertheless, we do not have the power to permit Torah prohibitions on this basis. We find in Chasam Sofer (Choshen Mishpat §194) only an allowance for a doctor to be brought home by a gentile, for this reason, that if we did not allow it, the doctor may abstain from going the next time. Nevertheless, the elder has already ruled… but at the very least, let us not add onto this and permit even melacha d’Oraisa.

Now it would seem that the heter to return home after saving a life — even if this involves chillul Shabbos — is based upon the concern of a sakanas nefashos in the future, and we may therefore desecrate Shabbos even now. Based on what we have seen, the poskim disagree whether a concern for a future sakanas nefashos permits only Rabbinic violations but not Biblical violations.

The heter to take pictures of terror on Shabbos out of concern for the terrorist’s future actions would be subject to this dispute — and according to R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, would be permitted only if it does not involve a Biblical violation.

* Reprinted from Exploring Halachic Dilemmas of War and Terror by Zvi Ryzman with permission from the copyright holder, ArtScroll Mesorah Publications.